Tomas [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2017-05-24 📝 Original message:On Wed, May 24, 2017, at ...
📅 Original date posted:2017-05-24
📝 Original message:On Wed, May 24, 2017, at 04:42, Erik Aronesty wrote:
> Instead of block thresholds, use utxo bits to coordinate size changes
> (larger and smaller should be allowed).>
> There is no reason for miners to be involved in a decision to change
> this aspects of the protocol. Plenty of other ways to coordinate.
Miners cannot change the block size or any other rule without support of
the users, because their blocks and coins would be rejected. This
mechanism that Bitcoin brought us, has been working fine and I see no
reason to change it with utxo bits.
I *only* propose an optional way to synchronize changes without the
need of off chain agreements, which seems like a simple improvement over
the current situation.
>
> Otherwise someone can make it seem to a miner like 99pct of nodes are
> ready for a larger weight.... even though that's false.
I agree that the user agent signalling isn't very important, and I think
that most of us aware that you cannot rely on counting them.
>
> On May 23, 2017 8:03 AM, "Tomas via bitcoin-dev" <bitcoin-
> dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:>> I have a proposal that would allow each user to optionally
>> configure the>> maximum block weight at a support threshold.
>>
>> It recognizes that there is no need for off chain bickering, by
>> providing a mechanism that lets each users freely choose their own
>> parameters while still maintaining full coordination of any changes.>>
>> The BIP can be found here:
>>
>> https://github.com/tomasvdw/bips/blob/master/bip-changing-the-maximum-block%20weight-based-on-a-support-threshold.mediawiki>>;
>> It is worth noting that this proposal does neither gives more
>> power to>> miners nor reduces decentralization. Miners still rely on their
>> blocks>> being accepted by economic nodes to sell their minted coins. This
>> proposal doesn't change that.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Tomas van der Wansem
>> bitcrust
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170524/648bb861/attachment-0001.html>;
📝 Original message:On Wed, May 24, 2017, at 04:42, Erik Aronesty wrote:
> Instead of block thresholds, use utxo bits to coordinate size changes
> (larger and smaller should be allowed).>
> There is no reason for miners to be involved in a decision to change
> this aspects of the protocol. Plenty of other ways to coordinate.
Miners cannot change the block size or any other rule without support of
the users, because their blocks and coins would be rejected. This
mechanism that Bitcoin brought us, has been working fine and I see no
reason to change it with utxo bits.
I *only* propose an optional way to synchronize changes without the
need of off chain agreements, which seems like a simple improvement over
the current situation.
>
> Otherwise someone can make it seem to a miner like 99pct of nodes are
> ready for a larger weight.... even though that's false.
I agree that the user agent signalling isn't very important, and I think
that most of us aware that you cannot rely on counting them.
>
> On May 23, 2017 8:03 AM, "Tomas via bitcoin-dev" <bitcoin-
> dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:>> I have a proposal that would allow each user to optionally
>> configure the>> maximum block weight at a support threshold.
>>
>> It recognizes that there is no need for off chain bickering, by
>> providing a mechanism that lets each users freely choose their own
>> parameters while still maintaining full coordination of any changes.>>
>> The BIP can be found here:
>>
>> https://github.com/tomasvdw/bips/blob/master/bip-changing-the-maximum-block%20weight-based-on-a-support-threshold.mediawiki>>;
>> It is worth noting that this proposal does neither gives more
>> power to>> miners nor reduces decentralization. Miners still rely on their
>> blocks>> being accepted by economic nodes to sell their minted coins. This
>> proposal doesn't change that.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Tomas van der Wansem
>> bitcrust
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170524/648bb861/attachment-0001.html>;